Mersin Uluslararası Limanı için Enerji Tüketim Hesaplamaları ve Gelecekteki Çözüm Yaklaşımları

Öz

Liman tesisleri küresel ticaretin temel bir unsurudur ve gemilerin ve liman elleçleme faaliyetlerinin enerji talepleriyle bir araya geldiğinde, önemli bir enerji tüketimi kaynağı olarak ortaya çıkarlar. Bu çalışma, 2021-2023 verilerini kullanarak, Mersin Uluslararası Limanı'nı (MIP) ziyaret eden Uzakyol gemilerinin ve liman vinçlerinin yıllık enerji tüketimini ölçmekte ve azaltma stratejileriyle birlikte ileriye dönük projeksiyonlar sunmaktadır. Gemiler, MIP'ye yanaşan Tankerler, Genel Kargo/Dökme Yük Gemileri, Ro-Ro Gemileri, Konteyner Gemileri ve Diğerleri olmak üzere beş türe ayrılmıştır ve yıllık miktar (P), ortalama brüt tonaj (GT), toplam uzunluk (L), ortalama güç kabulü (AkW) ve ortalama demirleme ve yanaşma bekleme süreleri (AAh) gibi girdileri kullanarak gemi özelinde (AkWh) ve toplam enerji tüketimini (TkWh) hesaplamaktadır. Analiz, gemi tipi başına AkWh ve her yıl için toplam TkWh'yi türetmek için Excel tabanlı bir hesaplama çerçevesi kullanır. Liman vinçleri için, 12 QC-STS ve 38 RTG vinci için aylık elektrik verileri dahil edilerek vinç enerjisi gemi bazlı tüketimle birleştirilir. Sonuçlar, 2021'den 2023'e kadar enerji talebinde genel olarak yıllık bazda bir artış olduğunu, bunun başlıca gemiyle ilgili enerji kullanımının artmasıyla yönlendirildiğini ve konteyner gemilerinin en enerji yoğun kategori olarak belirlendiğini göstermektedir. Vinçlerin aynı dönemde enerji tüketiminde bir azalma ile zıt bir eğilim gösterdiği bulunmuştur. Temel bulgular arasında 2021'den 2023'e kadar ortalama toplam bekleme süresinde (ATh) %75'lik bir artış, gemi bazlı enerji tüketiminde %49'luk kümülatif bir artış ve gemiler ve vinçler birleştirildiğinde toplam enerji talebinde %45'lik bir artış yer almaktadır. Konteyner gemileri, gemi tipleri arasında baskın enerji kullanıcılarıyken, toplam vinç enerjisi hafif bir düşüş göstermiştir. Çalışma, enerji büyümesinin artan operasyonel taleple uyumlu olduğunu vurgulamakta ve süreç optimizasyonu, tıkanıklık yönetimi ve yeşil liman uygulamalarının (örneğin kıyı elektriği, düşük buharlı sistem ve alternatif yakıtla çalışan elleçleme ekipmanları) benimsenmesi gibi hedefli azaltma stratejilerinin potansiyelini vurgulamaktadır. Gelecekteki çalışmalar, analizi daha geniş örneklemlere genişletmeli ve verim değişkenliği, gemi hızları, talep dalgalanmaları ve daha iyi liman yönetim stratejileri gibi etkenleri incelemelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Limanlar
• Gemiler
• Enerji Verimliliği
• Alternatif Enerji
• Çevre ve Enerji
• Sürdürülebilirlik

Energy Consumption Calculations for Mersin International Port and Prospective Future Solution Approaches

Öz

Port facilities are a pivotal element of global trade, and when coupled with the energy demands of vessels and port-handling activities, they emerge as a major source of energy consumption. This study quantifies the annual energy consumption of oceangoing vessels visiting Mersin International Port (MIP) and of port cranes on a yearly basis, using data from 2021–2023. It also provides forward-looking projections alongside mitigation strategies. Ships are categorized into five types which are berthing to MIP—Tankers, General Cargo/Bulk Carrier Ships, Ro-Ro Ships, Container Ships, and Others—and compute ship-specific (AkWh) and total energy consumption (TkWh) using inputs such as quantity per year (P), average gross tonnage (GT), length overall (L), average power acceptance (AkW), and average waiting times for anchorage (AAh) and berthing (ABh). The analysis employs an Excel-based calculation framework to derive AkWh per ship type and aggregate TkWh for each year. For port cranes, monthly electricity data for 12 QC-STS and 38 RTG cranes has been included, and crane energy have been combined with ship-based consumption. The results show an overall year-on-year rise in energy demand from 2021 to 2023, driven chiefly by increasing ship-related energy use, with container ships identified as the most energy-intensive category. Cranes were found to have a contrasting trend with a reduction in energy consumption over the same period. Key findings include a 75% increase in the average total waiting time (ATh) from 2021 to 2023, a 49% cumulative rise in ship-based energy consumption, and a 45% increase in total energy demand when combining ships and cranes. Container ships were the dominant energy users among ship types, while total crane energy declined slightly. The study highlights that energy growth aligns with rising operational demand and emphasises the potential of targeted mitigation strategies, such as process optimization, congestion management, and adoption of green port practices (e.g., shore-side electricity, slow-steaming, and alternative-fuel-powered handling equipment). Future work should extend the analysis to larger samples and explore factors such as throughput variability, vessel speeds, demand fluctuations and better port management strategies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ports
• Ships
• Energy Efficiency
• Alternative Energy.
• Energy and Environment
• Sustainability

Kaynakça

1. [1] Iris Ç, Lam JSL. A review of energy efficiency in ports: Operational strategies, technologies and energy management systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2019;112:170-182. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.069.
2. [2] Yalcin E, Suner M. The changing role of diesel oil-gasoil-LPG and hydrogen based fuels in human health risk: A numerical investigation in ferry ship operations. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2020;45(5):3660-3669. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.02.238.
3. [3] UNCTAD. Review of Maritime Transport 2024. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2021_en.pdf. Accessed 2025 Sep 25.
4. [4] Lane JM, Pretes M. Maritime dependency and economic prosperity: Why access to oceanic trade matters. Mar Policy. 2020;121:104180. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104180.
5. [5] Martínez-Moya J, Vazquez-Paja B, Gimenez Maldonado JA. Energy efficiency and CO2 emissions of port container terminal equipment: Evidence from the Port of Valencia. Energy Policy. 2019;131:312-319. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.04.044.
6. [6] Johnson H, Styhre L. Increased energy efficiency in short sea shipping through decreased time in port. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract. 2015;71:167-178. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.11.008.
7. [7] Sdoukopoulos E, Boile M, Tromaras A, Anastasiadis N. Energy efficiency in European ports: State-of-practice and insights on the way forward. Sustainability. 2019;11(18):4952. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184952.
8. [8] Prussi M, Scarlat N, Acciaro M, Kosmas V. Potential and limiting factors in the use of alternative fuels in the European maritime sector. J Clean Prod. 2021;291:125849. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125849.

9. [9] Uzun D, Okumus D, Canbulat O, Anil Gunbeyaz S, Karamperidis S, Hudson D, vd. Port energy demand model for implementing onshore power supply and alternative fuels. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2024;136:104432. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2024.104432.
10. [10] Liao CH, Tseng PH, Cullinane K, Lu CS. The impact of an emerging port on the carbon dioxide emissions of inland container transport: an empirical study of taipei port. Energy Policy. 2010;38(9):5251-5257. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.018.
11. [11] Buonomano A, del Papa G, Giuzio GF, Palombo A, Russo G. Future pathways for decarbonization and energy efficiency of ports: Modelling and optimization as sustainable energy hubs. J Clean Prod. 2023;420:138389. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138389.
12. [12] UNCTAD. Review of Maritime Transport 2024. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2019_en.pdf. Accessed 2025 Sep 25.
13. [13] UNCTAD. Review of Maritime Transport 2024. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2024_en.pdf. Accessed 2025 Sep 25.
14. [14] Zhang Y, Peng YQ, Wang W, Gu J, Wu XJ, Feng XJ. Air emission inventory of container ports’ cargo handling equipment with activity-based ‘bottom-up’ method. Adv Mech Eng. 2017;9(7):1-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814017711389.
15. [15] Papaioannou V, Pietrosanti S, Holderbaum W, Becerra VM, Mayer R. Analysis of energy usage for rtg cranes. Energy. 2017;125:337-344. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.122.
16. [16] Van Duin JHR, Geerlings H. Estimating CO2 footprints of container terminal port-operations. Int J Sustain Dev Plan. 2011;6(4):459-473. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2495/SDPV6-N4-459-473.
17. [17] Yang YC, Lin CL. Performance analysis of cargo-handling equipment from a green container terminal perspective. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2013;23:9-11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.03.009.
18. [18] Pavlic B, Cepak F, Sucic B, Peckaj M, Kandus B. Sustainable port infrastructure, practical implementation of the green port concept. Therm Sci. 2014;18(3):935-948. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2298/TSCI1403935P.
19. [19] Terminal PT, Lamong T, Iii P, Silalahi EK, Sarwito S, Kurniawan A. Analisa teknis dan ekonomis automatic stacking. 2016;5(2).
20. [20] Yu H, Ge YE, Chen J, Luo L, Tan C, Liu D. CO2 emission evaluation of yard tractors during loading at container terminals. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ. 2017;53:17-36. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.014.
21. [21] Türklim. Sektör istatistikleri. 2023. https://www.turklim.org/sektor-istatistikler. Accessed 2025 March 1.
22. [22] Wang Y, Wright L, Boccolini V, Ridley J. Modelling environmental life cycle performance of alternative marine power configurations with an integrated experimental assessment approach: A case study of an inland passenger barge. Sci Total Environ. 2024;947:173661. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173661.
23. [23] Suner M. Analysis of air pollution from three main transportation vehicles: a case study. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util Environ Eff. 2024;46(1):1890-1906. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2024.2302374.
24. [24] Yigit K, Acarkan B. A new electrical energy management approach for ships using mixed energy sources to ensure sustainable port cities. Sustain Cities Soc. 2018;40:126-135. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.04.004.
25. [25] Xia Z, Guo Z, Wang W, Jiang Y. Joint optimization of ship scheduling and speed reduction: A new strategy considering high transport efficiency and low carbon of ships in port. Ocean Eng. 2021;233:109224. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109224.
26. [26] Kwon JW, Yeo S, Lee WJ. Assessment of shipping emissions on Busan port of South Korea. J Mar Sci Eng. 2023;11(4):716. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11040716.
27. [27] Saputra H, Muvariz MF, Satoto SW, Koto J. Estimation of exhaust ship emission from marine traffic in the straits of Singapore and batam waterways using automatic identification system (AIS) data. J Teknol. 2015;77(23).
28. [28] General Directorate of Coastal Safety. 2024.
29. [29] General Directorate of Maritime Affairs. 2024.
30. [30] Mersin International Port (MIP). 2024.